Abstract
Explicitly set forth by Hambrick, Donald C. (born 1946) and Phyllis A. Mason (1984), upper echelons theory is the idea that top executives view their situations through their own highly personalized lenses. These individualized construals of strategic situations arise because of differences among executives in their experiences, values, personalities and other human factors. Using the upper echelons perspective, researchers have examined the effects of top management team (TMT) composition and processes on organizational outcomes, as well as the influences of chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics on company strategy and performance. Dozens of studies have confirmed the basic logic of upper echelons theory (comprehensively reviewed in Finkelstein et al. Strategic leadership: theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press, New York, 2009), pointing to the conclusion that if we want to understand strategy we must understand strategists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120.
Carpenter, M.A., M.A. Geletkanycz, and W.G. Sanders. 2004. The upper echelons revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management 60: 749–778.
Chatterjee, A., and D.C. Hambrick. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic CEOs and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 52: 351–386.
Crossland, C., and D.C. Hambrick. in press. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How national-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal.
Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Finkelstein, S., and D.C. Hambrick. 1990. Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 484–503.
Finkelstein, S., D.C. Hambrick, and A.A. Cannella. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hambrick, D.C., and S. Finkelstein. 1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizations. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. L. L. Cummings and B.M. Staw. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D.C., and G.D.S. Fukutomi. 1991. The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of Management Review 16: 719–742.
Hambrick, D.C., and P. Mason. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206.
Hambrick, D.C., T.S. Cho, and M.-J. Chen. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 659–684.
Hannan, M.T., and J.H. Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–964.
Henderson, A.D., D. Miller, and D.C. Hambrick. 2006. How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal 27: 447–460.
Jensen, M., and E.J. Zajac. 2004. Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demographic preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 25: 507–524.
Li, J.T., and D.C. Hambrick. 2005. Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal 48: 794–813.
Lieberson, S., and J.F. O’Connor. 1972. Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review 37: 117–130.
March, J.C., and H.A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Miller, D., and C. Droge. 1986. Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 539–560.
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology, ed. D. Magnusson and N.S. Endler. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Palmer, D.A., and B.M. Barber. 2001. Challengers, elites, and owning families: A social class theory of corporate acquisitions in the 1960s. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 87–120.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–191.
Peterson, R.S., D. Brent Smith, P.V. Martorana, and P.D. Owens. 2003. The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 795–808.
Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. New York: Harper & Row.
Simon, H.A. 1945. Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.
Simsek, Z., J.F. Veiga, M. Lubatkin, and R.N. Dino. 2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal 48: 69–84.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hambrick, D.C. (2018). Upper Echelons Theory. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_785
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_785
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-53721-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00772-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences